Cases 31 - 40 of 94
Waldrop v. Pickens County Law Enforcement Center
as 0:2018cv02230
Plaintiff:
Kasey Waldrop
Defendant:
Pickens County Law Enforcement Center
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Urey v. Pickens County Law Enforcement Center et al
as 2:2018cv02177
Defendant:
Pickens County Law Enforcement Center Medical Staff and Pickens County Law Enforcement Center
Plaintiff:
Fred Russell Urey, Sr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Bailey v. Pickens County L.E.C.
as 0:2018cv02012
Defendant:
Pickens County L.E.C.
Plaintiff:
LB Bailey
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sartin v. Pickens County Jail
as 4:2018cv01668
Plaintiff:
John Sartin
Defendant:
Pickens County Jail
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hagood v. Pickens County Solicitor's Office et al
as 8:2018cv01444
Plaintiff:
Willie Lee Hagood
Defendant:
Pickens County Solicitor's Office, Devin Dow and David Cantrell
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Drost v. Pickens County Law Enforcement Center
as 1:2018cv01266
Plaintiff:
Wayne Drost
Defendant:
Pickens County Law Enforcement Detention Facility
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Seabrooke v. Pickens County Law Enforcement Center et al
as 8:2018cv01066
Plaintiff:
Michael L Seabrooke
Defendant:
Pickens County Law Enforcement Center and Pickens County Solicitor's Office
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2018cv00895
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12117
Mathis v. Pickens County Detention Facility
as 0:2018cv00712
Plaintiff:
Richard Matthew Mathis
Defendant:
Pickens County Detention Facility
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gilstrap v. Eagle Eye Monitoring Co et al
as 8:2018cv00644
Plaintiff:
Olin Eugene Gilstrap, Donna Paige Gilstrap and Jaycie Lesley
Defendant:
Eagle Eye Monitoring Co, Sex Offender Office Pickens Co, Greg Combie and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
